SATTELLITE INDUSTRIES, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
GRACE STUTZ, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Sattellite Industries appeals the denial of a preliminary injunction seeking to enforce a non-compete covenant against a former employee, Grace Stutz, who began working for a competitor. The appellate court reversed, holding that a trial court's discretion to deny a preliminary injunction must have a basis in the record, particularly where a binding written contract exists.
The appellate court held that while trial courts have broad discretion in granting or denying preliminary injunctions, that discretion is not unlimited and must have some basis in the record, particularly where a binding written contract exists. Finding nothing in the record to support the denial and no specific explanation from the trial court or appellee, the court reversed and remanded with directions to grant the preliminary injunction.
[1] Allegations of contract existence, material breach, and lack of adequate remedy at law are sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction.
[2] A per curiam affirmance without an opinion has no precedential value.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“Sattellite has alleged the existence of a contract, the intentional, direct, and material breach of that agreement, and the lack of an adequate remedy except by in-junctive relief. These skeletal allegations, supported by evidence at the hearing below, are sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction.”
Establishes the legal standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction in non-compete cases
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceGrace Stutz was employed by Sattellite Industries as a sales representative under an employment agreement dated June 12, 1981, which included a covena…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Per Curiam Affirmance cases and more on FLexlaw
BERANEK, Judge.
This is an appeal from a nonfinal order denying a preliminary injunction in a case arising as a result of a breach of an employment agreement containing a covenant not to compete.
The appellee, Grace Stutz, was employed by appellant, Sattellite Industries, as a sales representative. On June 12, 1981, the parties entered into an employment agreement which ended on June 11, 1983. Included in the agreement was a covenant not to compete. Stutz terminated her employment in March, 1983, and began working as a salesperson for State Products, Inc., a competitor of Sattellite. Sattellite sued Stutz seek ing a permanent injunction and monetary damages. Sattellite’s request for a preliminary injunction was denied and it appeals.
Sattellite has alleged the existence of a contract, the intentional, direct, and material breach of that agreement, and the lack of an adequate remedy except by in-junctive relief. These skeletal allegations, supported by evidence at the hearing below, are sufficient to obtain a preliminary injunction. Silvers v. Dis-Com Securities, Inc., 403 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981); Hunter v. North American Biologicals, Inc., 287 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974).
In the trial court, appellee relied mainly on a Second District Court of Appeal opinion affirming a trial court’s denial of a preliminary injunction involving the same employer and another employee. (Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Copp, 421 So. 2d 525 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982)). However, that decision is a per curiam affirmance without an opinion and has no precedential value. Department of Legal Affairs v. District Court of Appeal, Fifth District, 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla.1983).
We hold that while a trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying preliminary injunctions, there must be some basis in the record for the decision. The court’s discretion is not unlimited particularly in the face of a binding written contract between the parties. After a thorough review of the record in this case, we can find nothing to support the denial of the preliminary injunction, and appellee has failed to specifically point out the basis for the ruling. We, therefore, reverse the decision of the trial judge and remand the matter with directions to enter an order granting the preliminary injunction.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
LETTS and DELL, JJ., concur.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Sanchez v. Abner Solomon, 508 So. 2d 1264 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)…will not disturb the trial court’s decision. See Daoud v. City of Miami Beach, 145 Fla. 449, 199 So. 582 (1941); Bailey v. Christo, 453 So. 2d 1134 (Fla. 1st DCA 1984), review denied, 461 So. 2d 113 (Fla.1985); Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Stutz, 437 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983). Having thoroughly reviewed the record of the instant case, we conclude that the prerequisites for granting and continuing the injunction at issue have been met. Therefore, the trial court properly denied appellants’ motion to d…
-
Rajiv Chandra, M.D. v. Gopal Gadodia, M.D., 610 So. 2d 15 (Fla. 5th DCA 1992)…a contract, an intentional, direct, and material breach of that agreement, and the lack of an adequate remedy except by injunctive relief stated a cause of action under the statute for a preliminary injunction. Sattellite Industries, Inc. v. Stutz, 437 So. 2d 222 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); see also Silvers, 403 So. 2d 1133. A showing of irreparable harm, an element required by equity to obtain injunctive relief in other actions in Florida, was not necessary when applying for temporary injunctions to enforce noncom…
Authorities Cited
- Dep't OF Legal Affairs v. Dist. Court OF Appeal, 434 So. 2d 310 (Fla. 1983)
- Silvers v. Dis-Com Sec., Inc., 403 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- State v. Chiriboga, 403 So. 2d 1133 (Fla. 4th DCA 1981)
- Hunter v. N. Am. Biologicals, Inc., 287 So. 2d 726 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974)